Brad Muir1, Aaron Lynn2, Meagan Maguire2, Brandi Ryan2, Dan Calow2, Mike Duffy2, Zack Souckey2. 1. Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, 6100 Leslie Street, Toronto, Canada ; Associate Professor, Faculty of Clinical Education, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, 6100 Leslie Street, Toronto, Canada. 2. Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, 6100 Leslie Street, Toronto, Canada ; Division of Undergraduate Studies, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, 6100 Leslie Street, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate baseline postural stability of a normal healthy population using the modified balance error scoring system (M-BESS) integrated with H-pattern testing (HP) and cervical range of motion with fixed ocular gaze (CROM). METHODS: Postural error scores for twelve participants were scored during each twenty second trial of the M-BESS protocol stances (double-leg [DL], tandem [TL] and single-leg [SL]). Participants also completed the same M-BESS protocol with the inclusion of HP and CROM conditions for a total of nine trials. RESULTS: The total mean ± standard deviation and median of errors within each condition were not different (M-BESS 2.6 ± 2.1, 2.0; HP 1.3 ± 1.1, 2.0; CROM 2.0 ± 2.0, 2.0; p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Although a small sample size, our findings suggest that with normal, healthy, subjects challenging their visual input and cervical range of motion while balancing gives you a similar number of errors as the standard M-BESS protocol.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate baseline postural stability of a normal healthy population using the modified balance error scoring system (M-BESS) integrated with H-pattern testing (HP) and cervical range of motion with fixed ocular gaze (CROM). METHODS: Postural error scores for twelve participants were scored during each twenty second trial of the M-BESS protocol stances (double-leg [DL], tandem [TL] and single-leg [SL]). Participants also completed the same M-BESS protocol with the inclusion of HP and CROM conditions for a total of nine trials. RESULTS: The total mean ± standard deviation and median of errors within each condition were not different (M-BESS 2.6 ± 2.1, 2.0; HP 1.3 ± 1.1, 2.0; CROM 2.0 ± 2.0, 2.0; p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Although a small sample size, our findings suggest that with normal, healthy, subjects challenging their visual input and cervical range of motion while balancing gives you a similar number of errors as the standard M-BESS protocol.
Authors: Kevin M Guskiewicz; Michael McCrea; Stephen W Marshall; Robert C Cantu; Christopher Randolph; William Barr; James A Onate; James P Kelly Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-11-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Paul McCrory; Willem H Meeuwisse; Mark Aubry; Bob Cantu; Jirí Dvorák; Ruben J Echemendia; Lars Engebretsen; Karen Johnston; Jeffrey S Kutcher; Martin Raftery; Allen Sills; Brian W Benson; Gavin A Davis; Richard G Ellenbogen; Kevin Guskiewicz; Stanley A Herring; Grant L Iverson; Barry D Jordan; James Kissick; Michael McCrea; Andrew S McIntosh; David Maddocks; Michael Makdissi; Laura Purcell; Margot Putukian; Kathryn Schneider; Charles H Tator; Michael Turner Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Michael McCrea; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Stephen W Marshall; William Barr; Christopher Randolph; Robert C Cantu; James A Onate; Jingzhen Yang; James P Kelly Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-11-19 Impact factor: 56.272